Anamorphic lenses are not going away it seems.
Do I need one?
Probably not, but would I use one?
Probably.
There are a few things that come with them, some I like, some I could care less about.
They flare more or less, often more and with consistently blue coloured steaks. They are sometimes a little or a lot soft, most suffer from some edge issues, some strong distortions, oddly shaped oval and “cats-eye” Bokeh and most suffer from generally poor close focus.
I bought some Moment Cineflare filters* to scratch that itch and they are a great controllable and flexible option, but it is the one thing that only anamorphic lenses can offer, the wide screen effect at longer or normal focal lengths that I crave.
2:1 width or more is completely possible with a standard spherical lens and some cropping, but there is more to it.
The 24mm is the same as a 48mm ff equivalent on a M43 camera in height, that is to say squeezed or de-squeezed, the hight of the frame looks like a 50mm lens, but the de-squeezed width is closer to a 32-36mm lens (depending on the squeeze). A 50mm or 35mm cropped are a 35 or 50mm cropped as far as perspective and relative magnification are concerned.
An anamorphic lens is the only lens that can give you that 50/35 combo.
A standard lens with the width of a semi wide or a portrait with a standard lenses view are both appealing, but for my needs, based on what is reasonably available, the Sirui 24 f2.8 on a MFT mount looks to be the one for the following reasons.
It flares, but not as uncontrollably as the others and the clean steaks are a nice neutral blue.
It has oval Bokeh balls (not a big thing for me), but again they are controlled and generally small.
It is a wide lens that is also a normal lens, which is the idea I feel. The ability to use it as a close portrait, wide environment or middle ground story teller is important. I could see it being used exclusively for a project.
Optically, it is a decent lens. Distortions, softness and edge quality are all closer to a normal lens than the worst (best?) of anamorphic offerings.
It has decent close focus (for an anamorphic) and no focus breathing, something the other lenses in the range, especially the 35mm do not do well. It does change squeeze factor at close distances, which needs to be taken into account, but nothing major.
To me, an anamorphic lens in an otherwise normal kit needs to bring that “big screen” feel for establishing shots or near-to-far blocking.
Nothing more, just that.
Longer focal lengths I can sort with longer lenses and crop. I know this is not strictly true, but for me it is enough, because once a lens is only long or only wide the magic is lost. It is the wide lens that is not a wide that appeals.
If someone is big in the screen it is because you are close to them and the same for longer distances, without exaggeration. Once I have magnified or expanded perspective the effect is true to life for that look.
A nifty-fifty with a semi wide view and some controllable cinematic coolness.
Perfect.
If it were to be added to, the cheaper 50mm makes sense as a true point of difference (100mm equiv image height, with about 65mm width), but see above for reasons why this will likely not happen.
*Below are the filters I have, used on a Panasonic 50mm (clockwise from top left).
The gold Cinestreak is strong, but it matched the light colour.
Used horizontally (so the streaks go vertical). The image looks jarred, but is sharp in close.
The cheap blue streak I got from Amazon ($25au) is strong and “hazy”. This could be useful, actually looking more like an anamorphic lens.
The Blue Cinestreak is mild, but the blue colour is fighting the gold lights in this case.
Plenty sharp, but pretty busy.
The no-name blue streak will be used as the “dirty” effect filter.